Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs (Junk Science & Barf Alert)

British Medical Journal ^ | 2/1/03 | Christopher Zinn Sydney

[qam1]

BMJ 2003;326:242 ( 1 February )

News roundup

Social costs of smoking are triple those of illicit drugs

Christopher Zinn Sydney

The financial impact of tobacco and alcohol far outweigh the impact of illicit drugs, with smoking costing the community almost three times as much as any other category of drug, according to a study on the social costs of drug use in Australia.

The report, produced for the federal government’s national drug strategy, estimates that tobacco accounted for 61.2% of the costs to society of drugs, or $A21bn (£7.6bn; $12.4bn; €11.5bn). For the first time the cost calculations included an estimate of the impact of passive smoking and newly available data to assess the effect on the Australian population of absenteeism, drugs, ambulances, fires, crime, and even litter.

Alcohol accounted for 22% of total costs ($A7.5bn) and illegal drugs for 17% ($A6.0bn). The calculations for the survey period, 1998-9, included both tangible and intangible costs to individuals, companies, and governments. Tangible costs included hospital care, road crashes, loss of productivity and tax revenue, and increased crime and policing. The intangible costs included pain and suffering.

The methods used in this report, the third of its kind, differed so much from the previous reports as to preclude comparisons. Long lists of conditions associated with different types of drug use—such as hypertension (associated with alcohol), ischaemic heart disease (smoking), and low birth weight (cocaine)—were compiled. The authors found it impossible to estimate the costs of the misuse of prescribed pharmaceuticals.

One of the authors, David Collins, a professor in economics at Sydney’s Macquarie University, said the report had, for the first time, measured the cost of passive smoking, assessing it at A$47m. Fires resulting from cigarettes were estimated to cost A$81m.

"A lot of the impact of . . . involuntary smoking is on the unborn child and on children under 14 years. It hits the young very hard because they have no control over their lives," he told the Sydney Morning Herald (21 Jan). "Tobacco is still the greatest killer by far and imposes the greatest costs."

The report said the costs were all net costs and, consistent with previous studies, were estimated conservatively. Lower cost alternatives were selected when there was a choice.

Cannabis, opiates, stimulants, hallucinogens, and anabolic steroids were listed as illicit drugs.

Alcohol was found to have prevented more deaths than it caused because of the beneficial effects of moderate consumption. In the survey period 4286 people reportedly died because of alcohol but 7029 deaths were avoided.

Drug agencies said that they had been aware that tobacco and alcohol were responsible for more problems than were illicit drugs, but they added that the report would show the general public how legal drugs had much more impact.

Professor Collins said the report showed that the costs of drug use are so high that the benefits from even a small reduction in consumption could be large.

"Antitobacco programmes yield very high rates of return, and the same is true for illicit drugs," he said.

[Max McGarrity]

We should thank the Man upstairs for small favors.

[Gabz]

LOL!!!!!

You are SOOOOOOOOOOO correct.

[Myrddin]

It IS a legal commodity.

My father-in-law enjoyed that legal commodity and copious volumes of alcohol too. Diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema and ultimately congestive heart failure just before breakfast one morning. Room temperature at age 53. My wife's grandmother took an early exit with emphysema from the same legal commodity. Room temperature at age 58. Good stuff.

[qam1]

At least they didn't go as far as the State of Delaware which blames Zits and nightmares on smoking.

I will concede the nightmares is probably correct - because every time I have a dream that involved the lies of the antis - it is a nightmare.

I'll have to dig out the list from Delaware and post it - talk about a laugh!!!!!!!!!

Actually that list posted in the study was rather tame compared to some of the list of dangers of smoking I have seen.

I do find it funny they would list Zits as being a side effect especially since the antis claim smoking causes impotence (We all remember those commericals where the cigarettes went limp) because smoking lowers testosterone levels. Well pimples are caused/exacerbated by you guessed it higher levels of testosterone. So which is it??

The Anti-smoking Nazis - The Only people who can have their cake and eat it to

[Great Dane]

#23........ Funny, when we use anecdotes, it doesn't coun't with the ANTI's.......... my dad smoked and was obese, died of old age at 90.

[Myrddin]

Funny, when we use anecdotes, it doesn't coun't with the ANTI's.......... my dad smoked and was obese, died of old age at 90.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and children.

There is probably a genetic component that predisposes some individuals to develop cancer or heart disease as a consequence of smoking. Until you can definitively tell an individual that he or she has no such predisposition, it is irresponsible to advocate that smoking is unconditionally safe.

[metesky]

My in-laws are slowly trying to kill themselves also.

Because their daughter married you.

[LIBERTARIAN JOE]

So then would that mean that if the current illegal drugs that we have were made legal, and taxed, that the tax would offset the negative qualities of illegal drugs?

Yes, by a great margin. Hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in law enforcement, court, military, rehab & prison expenses, hundreds of thousands of non-productive gov't leeches in drug war-dependent 'jobs' being weaned off the gov't teat, big boost in tax receipts, lower availability of drugs for children, probably a decrease in the number of drug users as well as the end of the incalculable costs associated with the police-state built up around the war on some drugs.

Heck, just think of the benefits of not having to watch those idiotic gov't anti-drug propaganda commercials on tv!

[metesky]

Personal anecdotes have no meaning whatsoever in a rational debate. Let me counter with my meaningless anecdote:

My father enjoyed that legal commodity and copious volumes of alcohol too. No diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema or congestive heart failure. He did, however have really bad knees from over 95 years of living large. While cooking breakfast one morning, the knees gave out and he hit his old head on a cabinet corner and died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

9/8/07 - 11/19/02

So we even out. Sounds to me like your in-laws had a gene problem.

[RWG]

I would really like to know how the hell smoking causes Anal or Penile Cancer...why do you think they call them fags and butts?

[metesky]

Until you can definitively tell an individual that he or she has no such predisposition, it is irresponsible to advocate that smoking is unconditionally safe.

I challenge you to show us the post on any smoking thread anywhere on this forum where we made the claim that smoking is "unconditionally safe".

Living in a dangerous world is far from unconditionally safe, but this is not a debate about safety, it's a debate about personal freedom, property rights and whether any goobermint anywhere has the right to control us serfs with phoney statistics.

[metesky]

The whole point of the life of a free person is to live it and too that point a short anecdote:

There is no doubt that Aaron Burr was a tragic figure whose long life had many twists and turns and it was no doubt good for the Republic that neither he nor Hamilton were ever elected president.

Burr, a copious cigar smoker, died at age 80 and his last landlady had a few tales to tell about him, one of which follows.

The landlady was given to fits of melancholy and sometimes wished she were dead. Burr always rebuked her and urged her to enjoy herself. During one paricular patch of trouble, she cried, "Oh Colonel, how shall I get through this?"

"Live through it, my dear," Burr said.

The landlady refused to be solaced: "This will kill me, Colonel, I know I can not survive this."

"Well die then, Madame," Colonel Burr said. "But bless me, die game.

[Leisler]

"..unconditionally safe..

A. Define, scientifically, "safe."

List those things that are, "unconditionally safe".

I await your illumination.

[Great Dane]

Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and children.

Yeah, we know, only the ANTI's opinion counts.

[qam1]

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and children.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Gunshot Wound. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack SUV Rollover. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Due to eating to much fatty & Junk food. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack in a Snowmobile Accident. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Bee Sting because the store had live flowers outside. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack Diabietis because he drank Soda. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and CHILDREN.

As you can see your arguement can be replaced and used to justify laws and restrictions on any behavior/activity the nanny state government wants to.

[wayoverontheright]

The costs of the drug war are absolutely staggering when you think about it. Interdiction requires boats, manpower, radar, cars trucks, dogs and more. Druggies commit most of the crimes committed in our country today. How do you calculate the cost of additional law enforcement just to deal with drug-related crime?

All this before you begin treating the individuals themselves and the havoc wreaked on their families.

I am not a smoker, the conclusions of this study just defy logic to me.

[Just another Joe]

So basically if you die or get sick and you smoke, The smoking caused it and it cost society.

You got it.
Remember, if you smomke and you die of ANYTHING they count it as a smoking related death.

[Max McGarrity]

Look like it might be more risky for you to engage in that LEGAL activity than the rest of us, genetics being so important and all. Hard to overcome those defective genes...

[Max McGarrity]

It's only funny to people who don't have dead family members. Social security and insurance settlements are a poor substitute for a father who dies of a heart attack. Your counter anecdote does nothing for the widows and children.

So a "father who dies of a heart attack" from shoveling snow, brought on because he's spent most of his life behind a desk is more comforting for the widows and children? Get real. There are no guarantees, and everyone dies. Using emotion-laden 'soundbytes' when discussing statistical costs is disingenuous at best.

There is probably a genetic component that predisposes some individuals to develop cancer or heart disease as a consequence of smoking. Until you can definitively tell an individual that he or she has no such predisposition, it is irresponsible to advocate that smoking is unconditionally safe.

I've never once heard ANYONE here say that "smoking is unconditionally safe." If you have, I'd like to know where. I can tell you this: MY family history is such that I feel confident I'll live plenty long enough, whether or not I smoke, and no matter WHAT risks I decide to take, they are none of anyone else's business.